When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Co-defendant D is the Co-defendant E branch president of the Co-defendant E branch, the Co-defendant F branch secretariat of the Democratic Labor Relations Headquarters G branch, Co-defendant C's chief site director of the Democratic Labor Relations Council, the Co-defendant A's representative of the E branch site of the Co-defendant A, the Co-defendant A's representative of the land for the Co-defendant E branch of the Co-defendant A, the Co-defendant A's representative of the land for the Co-defendant E branch of the land for the Co-defendant, the Co-defendant C branch president of the Co-defendant E branch of the land for the Co-Defendant E branch, the vice president of the land for the Co-defendant, the Co-defendant C branch, the Co-defendant's representative of the land for the Co-Defendant E branch, the Co-defendant C branch of the land for the Co-Defendant E branch, the Co-defendant C branch of the Law and the E branch of the Co-Defendant

On June 7, 2013, in order to overcome the situation where the capital erosion deepens and the existence of the company is endangered due to the illegal act of the Dispute Resolution E branch and the external economic crisis, the Co-Defendant, Co-Defendant, and the Dispute Resolution Co-Defendant, and the Dispute Resolution Co-Defendant, the Dispute Resolution Co-Defendant, and the Dispute Resolution Co-Defendant, were willing to oppose the resolution of the said General Meeting of Shareholders by dividing part of share certificates from shareholders to oppose the above decision of capital reduction on the ground that the members who hold the shareholders are deemed to be damaged by the above capital reduction, and by exercising their voting rights by proxy.

The defendant and co-defendant, together with more than 120 members of the E branch of the Dispute Resolution Co-Defendant and Co-defendant, did not give prior notice of the "Ununited Exercise of Voting Rights" to the temporary shareholders meeting of the victim E in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seoul, at around 09:0 on June 7, 2013 at the temporary shareholders meeting of the victim E in the Dispute Resolution Co-Defendant and Co-defendant in Seocho-gu, and did not give prior notice of the "Ununited Exercise of Voting Rights" to the above shareholders' meeting. The defendant and Co-defendant rejected the position of the above shareholders' meeting, and they enter the above shareholders' meeting to prevent entry into the above shareholders' meeting, and enter into the above shareholders' meeting, and "Co-defendant D" in the above shareholders' meeting.